They still don't have the beginnings of a case because the clinchers are:

1. They didn't have the sense to check the date of the numbers on the website. Unless they can prove there's a law that the lottery websites are required to update the numbers within a certain timeframe they have no case. And as long as the date of the draw of the numbers posted is there, they can't blame anyone but themselves.

2. It's their responsibility to keep, and present, a signed ticket to the lottery commission. They weren't scammed. They weren't robbed at gunpoint. A fire didn't break out and incinerate the ticket. They opted to throw the ticket away.

3. They also had the option to double check the numbers directly on the MM website. They didn't.

Pretty soon you're going to have people suing for money on tickets they lost or allowed to expired if this is ever allowed to go forward.

It looks like we're talking about two different things because if the store where they bought their tickets never sold a ticket matching 5 numbers, there is no $ million dollar law suit. If a state lottery can determine where and when a jackpot winning ticket was sold, they also can determine where any 5 number match was sold.

I said they have the beginnings of a case if there is an unclaimed ticket matching five numbers and that doesn't necessarily means a "good case". Do you believe they are suing the N.J. Lottery for $1 million only because the website was slow?

These two guys from New York claim New Jersey had such a ticket that went unclaimed and they want NJ to prove they didn't. Since they are both from NY I wonder why they didn't check the NY website too since both states sell PB. Their problem isn't for NJ to prove no such ticket exits but to prove they brought it. Tickets go unclaimed all the time but states have no obligation to give the prize to any one with a good story.

"The plaintiffs here may not have produced the winning ticket but have tendered two of the three tickets purchased in immediate succession and can prove that they in fact purchased and possessed the original ticket," Logan writes in the lawsuit.

If there was no ticket sold matching five numbers without the bonus number, there is no case. If there was such a ticket sold and was in "immediate succession", it depends on N.J. law or if there are any precedents where a prize was award to a player without validating the ticket.

Recently a player who was swindled out of scratch-off jackpot was awarded the prize without the ticket.

If and only if there was a ticket matching five numbers sold at the same store and if they made their claim of discarding the ticket before the expiration date, they may have the beginnings of case. But even if they can prove it was likely they bought the winning ticket, N.J. might have a "no ticket, no money" law.

If and only if there was a ticket matching five numbers sold at the same store and if they made their claim of discarding the ticket before the expiration date, they may have the beginnings of case. But even if they can prove it was likely they bought the winning ticket, N.J. might have a "no ticket, no money" law.

Stack makes a good point. It's tempting to say that if you're dumb enough to toss your ticket because you weren't paying attention when you're checking it then you deserve to lose. However, as far as facts go, if the other two tickets that they do have were bought at the same time and place as the missing winner, that's enough evidence to say that it is plausible that they had the winner and they can at least start a case. They might not win, but it's enough to get the ball rolling.

It would be a lot easier if the store where the winning ticket was sold still had the surveillance video from the date and time the sale occurred. However, that's not likely.

It would also be a lot easier if they were obviously lying, like if there are no outstanding $1 million winners from NJ for that date. So far, though, that doesn't appear to be the case. If it was, the story would have been over long ago.

If I was the judge, I would be laughing in their faces LONG TIME!!!! Mr. Cambria was the impatient one who discarded his ticket before waiting for the results of the draw. That's solely on him, cry me a river!!

There has been times here in Maryland where the Maryland Lottery website has been slow in updating, that doesn't mean that I say oh well I probably lost anyways so I destroy my tickets. Sounds like Mr. Cambria realized what a huge mistake he made yet wants the New Jersey Lottery to somehow be responsible fo his mistake.

No Lottery Commission is going to go ahead and honor this " missing ticket"- it would open up a flood gate of other silly complaints from lottery players.

If these guys tossed their ticket, how is that the Commissions fault?

That's like rear ending someone and complaining that the reason you did is because the person in front of you...Stopped!

I was about to comment and I saw your post, noise-gate, and I agree, for that reason alone, they do not want to start up all the crazys. It's tough, if it was me I'd be very unhappy, but it has to begin and end with the physical ticket. The fact that they are trying to say it's the Lottery's fault for not changing the number quick enough is a bad choice. You want to garner compassionate support, build social media popularity, go on Ellen, make the Commission see its good public relations to maybe give you a few hundred thousand. Get the media on your side from the jump before suing anybody. But being painted as nice guys went out the window with this approach! It takes about 15 minutes sometimes to see the change online. They blew it by not seeing the date was unchanged and then not holding the ticket until it could be checked from more than one source. I feel bad for them, I take no pleasure in calling them any names.

And besides, many times, I've played numbers, let the guy behind me go - maybe he plays only one number and it's in that game - then I turn around and decide to play more.

Seems so simple: three digits, 168 to one odds when boxed... all you have to do is pick the right ones!

I don't buy the middle of the series claim. Someone could have bought that ticket then these two came back in and decided to buy one more ticket.

Since they regularly bought "tickets for each other" and their lawyer says the 3 tickets were bought in immediate succession it's pretty unlikely that there was a meaningful time between the sale of the first and third ticket. Even though 3 separate tickets were issued it was probably done as a single terminal transaction, and that would mean that proving conclusively that they bought all 3 tickets is probably very easy. The real challenge will be the simple rule that the NJ lottery requires the winning ticket to be presented. Their argument about the timing of posting the winning numbers has about zero chance of success, so they'll need to convince a court that the rule can't be enforced. It may be a arbitrary, or even an unfair rule when there's clear proof that they're the lawful owners/purchasers of the winning ticket, but that doesn't mean it's not an enforceable rule they agreed to when the bought the ticket.

Stack makes a good point. It's tempting to say that if you're dumb enough to toss your ticket because you weren't paying attention when you're checking it then you deserve to lose. However, as far as facts go, if the other two tickets that they do have were bought at the same time and place as the missing winner, that's enough evidence to say that it is plausible that they had the winner and they can at least start a case. They might not win, but it's enough to get the ball rolling.

It would be a lot easier if the store where the winning ticket was sold still had the surveillance video from the date and time the sale occurred. However, that's not likely.

It would also be a lot easier if they were obviously lying, like if there are no outstanding $1 million winners from NJ for that date. So far, though, that doesn't appear to be the case. If it was, the story would have been over long ago.

I think you're all missing the real point. It doesn't matter if they bought the winning ticket. The rules on every single website states that they have to present the ticket, signed, with the appropriate ID. The lawyer threw the red herring of them being able to prove they bought the winning ticket to distract from the real issue, which is, withouttheticketyoudon'tgetpaid. The lawsuit is nothing but a smoke screen being used to get around the rules. The fact that they were dumb enough not to check the date is just cherry on the sundae.

If I bought the winning Euromillions ticket, I couldn't sue them when they deny my claim because the rules state I have to be a resident of a specific country in order to collect. If I wasn't going to abide by their terms I should not have played. MM has its own rules. Thesetwoidiotsdon'tget to circumvent the rules on the excuse that they're morons.

I think you're all missing the real point. It doesn't matter if they bought the winning ticket. The rules on every single website states that they have to present the ticket, signed, with the appropriate ID. The lawyer threw the red herring of them being able to prove they bought the winning ticket to distract from the real issue, which is, withouttheticketyoudon'tgetpaid. The lawsuit is nothing but a smoke screen being used to get around the rules. The fact that they were dumb enough not to check the date is just cherry on the sundae.

If I bought the winning Euromillions ticket, I couldn't sue them when they deny my claim because the rules state I have to be a resident of a specific country in order to collect. If I wasn't going to abide by their terms I should not have played. MM has its own rules. Thesetwoidiotsdon'tget to circumvent the rules on the excuse that they're morons.

Except we have precedent where a winner was able to collect despite no longer having the winning ticket in their possession. Others have mentioned this as well, so I know I'm not making it up.

I'm not saying these folks should get the million. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with the majority here that since they don't have the ticket, they don't have a claim. All I'm saying is that if everything else is in order, then maybe they have a case. If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you at least try?